​Has Science disproven miracles? A lot of people today would answer yes to this question. They argue that ancient man was too naïve and believed in miracles. But I have shown that not to be the case in an earlier blog post (here). They say now that we have progressed in our scientific knowledge we understand that nature works in fixed, regular ways. Therefore, the concept of a miracle simply goes against what we have learned from science. Or has it?

Ancient man was not as naïve as we might take him for. In the New Testament Joseph was engaged to be married to Mary. When he found her to be pregnant he decided to put her away quietly. Why would he do that? Because he understood that the regular and fixed way that women become pregnant is by being with a man sexually. But later he came to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Why? Because he also believed in the supernatural. He also believed that there existed something beyond nature which could interfere with her workings.

One might argue that science has shown us there is no such thing as a supernatural. But I would retort, “which of the sciences show us this?”. You see, science, by its very nature (no pun intended), could never disprove the supernatural. For science is the study of the workings of the natural world and the question at hand is—is there anything outside of nature?

The hurdle that some have to cross at this point is their false presupposition that science not only tells us how nature normally works but it also tells us how nature must work. I have heard it argued the laws of nature are fixed. For example, it tell us that 2+2=4. Nothing can alter the fact that 2+2 must always equal four. But I think this is a bad analogy. I will debunk it with my own analogy (not original with me).

Suppose I put $20 in my dresser tonight and then $20 in my dresser the following night. Do you suppose on the third night I should find $40 in my dresser? Well of course. But wait a moment. There is no guarantee. For suppose a burglary has occurred and the thief has take my $40. It is not the laws of arithmetic that has been broken, only the laws of America. So the laws of nature only tell us what normally happens unless there is outside interference.

I can hit a cue ball on a pool table with a certain amount of power, at a certain angle, and predict exactly where the ball will travel. What I cannot tell u is whether my competitor will pick up the ball mid-flight. We use the laws of nature to predict what is generally going to happen. They cannot tell us whether someone is going to interfere.

You should not go to physicist to tell you how likely my competitor is to snatch up the cue ball. You need to go to a psychologist for that. Thus, we need not go to the scientists to answer our metaphysical questions.

If miracles still happen today would that convince everyone in the world of the supernatural? I don’t think it would. Unfortunately, people believe things not simply on intellectual grounds. There are two other factors involved:

Emotions

The Will

I have found that a lot of people will hold beliefs due to emotional reasons rather than what the facts say. In fact, some people reject plain facts because they simply do not want to believe them. So if the fact of a miracle smacked someone in the face would it change their mind? I doubt it. Facts do not simply speak for themselves, one must interpret the facts. Interpretation of facts & your experience of events depends on preconceptions. Our preconceptions can highly influence how we look at a situation. A naïve man will think his wife faithful when she is not and the jealous man will think her unfaithful when she is: the question of actual fidelity remains to be settled on some other grounds.

I have often heard it said by skeptics that the ancient man readily accepted miracles because they did not understand the Laws of Nature. I think this is rubbish. Here are a few biblical examples:

When Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant he decided to put her away quietly instead of having her stoned to death for adultery. Why did he suppose she committed adultery? Because he understood enough about biology to know that women are not A-sexual; pregnancy requires a partner. When he accepted the testimony of his vision he regarded it as a miracle because he understood it must be a suspension of the regular Laws of Nature

When the disciples saw Jesus walking on water they were scared out of their minds. Of course they would not have become so frightened unless they had known the Laws of Nature; that men cannot walk on water.

Therefore, ancient man understood the regular order of nature. For unless he did, then he would not have noticed a departure from it. If ancient man were so ignorant of the Laws of Nature then he would not have noticed a supposed miracle at all. To experience a miracle there are two conditions required:

We must believe in a normal stability of nature

We must believe in some reality beyond nature.

For the materialist, they deny the second condition. Therefore, they are forced to explain away any fact that might point to a miracle. But what is more incredible? Having to explain away the facts or believing in the possibility of miracles? The old Testament says that Sennacherib’s invasion was stopped by angels (2nd Kings 19:35). Herodotus tells us that a plethora of mice came up and ate all the bowstrings of his army. An honest man will admit there is nothing intrinsically unlikely in the existence of angels. But we can all admit that mice do not do such things as described by Herodotus. So what is more likely? That angels exist or that mice acted in a completely uncharacteristic fashion? Unless you start by begging the question you must admit, until evidence tells you otherwise, that angels do exist. Therefore, it is more likely that a miracle occurred than mice eating bowstrings.

Shouldn’t a worldview, if it be called “reasonable”, be able to answer some of the basic questions in our reality? It doesn’t seem plausible that a belief system would be true if it doesn’t correspond to the real world. This is one reason why I think Christianity is true. The Bible speaks about human nature and life as they really are. Furthermore, this is why I whole-heartily reject naturalism. For it fails to answer the basic questions of life and cuts off the hands that supposedly feed it.

I remember watching a debate one time (I can’t remember who was in it) and the naturalist was arguing that reason is simply a product of evolution. That is, we aren’t really thinking rationally, we are simply chemicals in motion. Take a step back and think about that for a moment. He was arguing that reason doesn’t exist. So he was trying to reason with you to tell you that reason doesn’t exist. In other words, he was attempting to persuade you to change your mind by saying that we don’t have free-will in order to change our minds. If you think I am making this up or just referencing a quack-job then read this quote by Richard Dawkins:

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

All materialist systems break down when it comes to the problem of knowledge. Think about these simple questions to ask any materialist:

If our thoughts are simply undersigned and irrelevant products of chemical reactions, then what reason have we to trust them? This is why I always tell Atheists that they are proving themselves wrong by simply arguing with me.

Why are they trying to reason with me if they don’t even believe we have free-will? Again, I’m not arguing a straw-man. Read Sam Harris’ book Free Will where he denies free-will, and he isn’t the only one. They try to convince me I’m wrong when their worldview says there is no absolute right or wrong.

If I'm hard-wired to believe in God, according to a Materialistic worldview, then how are you going to convince me otherwise? They desire for me to believe what they believe when their belief is that we are simply pre-hardwired to think the way we think. That is like trying to convince your computer to stop working off the binary code.

We are told, by atheists, that the universe is evolving. By its very nature the idea of “evolving” means we are getting better. But in the naturalistic paradigm what basis do they have to judge “better”? In order to say something is “better” there must be some absolute standard of good outside of the universe. But that contradicts their worldview. Therefore, by “better” they must mean something like “what we are becoming”. But to say that the world is becoming what it is becoming is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining your destination as the place you have reached.